It's because you don't have one isn't it? You just think it's disgusting and that's what your stand is built on. Which is fine--it sounds pretty gross to me too--but you can't build a moral stand on "It's gross."

The idea that eating a placenta is just practical and not an act of cannibalism is something I have some difficulty with. I suppose the notion is that it is of no further use to the mother or child after the birth so it may as well be put to good use. Well, supposing that a group of people lost in a remote part of the world suffer an attack from a crocodile who bites off someone's leg but is repelled before being able to devour it. The leg is of no further use to the unfortunate wretch who has lost it so why not eat it? What then if the victim takes a turn for the worst and dies from his injuries. His body is of no further use. Why not eat it? At least the man died of his injuries and was not killed for food. Which is worse killing an animal for food or eating meat from an animal (or human) who has died from some other cause.

Originally posted by diamond Well, supposing that a group of people lost in a remote part of the world suffer an attack from a crocodile who bites off someone's leg but is repelled before being able to devour it. The leg is of no further use to the unfortunate wretch who has lost it so why not eat it?